Looking at this season for example how many of the eg. 6 worst teams are truly in tank mode (supported and seriously practiced by the coach and players). Iam hard pressed to point to any including the Bobcats and the Raptors. The tank nation is us the fans and the 6 teams are just plain bad. I will say though that BC was quite purposeful in choosing this roster to facilitate a bad season while the Bobcats theoretically could have been much better than they have if their 2 high picks (Biyombo & Kemba) played at a higher level.

My suggestion would be to eliminate the weighting (have a straight lottery) amongst the worst 4 teams, retain the weighting for the next 10 and then by record. My hope is that teams will find their natural level of competence without an incentive to play badly except maybe at the very end of the season when jockeying to get into the worst 4 group might occur by those on the edge. No incentives/guarantees for the top picks.

My suggestion would be to eliminate the weighting (have a straight lottery) amongst the worst 4 teams, retain the weighting for the next 10 and then by record. My hope is that teams will find their natural level of competence without an incentive to play badly except maybe at the very end of the season when jockeying to get into the worst 4 group might occur by those on the edge. No incentives/guarantees for the top picks.

Unfortunately, the jockeying for position into the worst 4 group would likely create a scenario like the one which actually happened in the 1983-84 season.

One of the clearest lessons from the 2012 Trade Deadline is that tanking is no longer a strategy to be discussed in accusatory whispers, as it was when Cleveland trashed its season to improve its chances of netting LeBron James. In today’s NBA, tanking is a way of life.

NBA teams and fans are willing to throw away entire seasons (full of games that people pay good money to attend) to end up at the top of the lottery with an empty capsheet, also known as “Position A” for building a longterm winner.

Don’t like it? Well don’t blame NBA front offices, their job is to win within the current system.

Rank the teams that are in the lottery (failed to make the playoffs) 1-14, with one being the worst record, etc.

Take a ball for each team ranked 7-14. Draw one of those: the team drawn gets the 14th pick. Add the ball for team 6, draw for the 13th pick. Add the ball for team 5, draw for the 12th pick, etc. For picks 8-1, you just keep drawing from the remaining balls.

This way, there's a bit of an advantage of having a worse record, but any team can win the lottery, and record doesn't make such a big difference in the rankings.

What exactly? Remove one of the few avenues a small market team like Oklahoma City has to build a contender? The league's current system is fine and if some teams want to tank then so be it. They should have to answer to their own fans, not the league on this topic. The league's only concern should be when teams don't following the league rules. Fans vote with their dollars. If you don't like it, abstain. Seriously, teams are doing this because we the fans have confirmed that collectively we're willing to pay for it.

For the record I don't feel that most teams are tanking. Maybe some general managers are placing their teams at a disadvantage but the coaches and players are still out there trying to win.

malefax wrote:

Here's a nice solution

Rank the teams that are in the lottery (failed to make the playoffs) 1-14, with one being the worst record, etc.

Take a ball for each team ranked 7-14. Draw one of those: the team drawn gets the 14th pick. Add the ball for team 6, draw for the 13th pick. Add the ball for team 5, draw for the 12th pick, etc. For picks 8-1, you just keep drawing from the remaining balls.

This way, there's a bit of an advantage of having a worse record, but any team can win the lottery, and record doesn't make such a big difference in the rankings.

How does this stop teams from tanking? There is still a benefit to the worst team in this scenario.

The problem with the NHL proposal is that it isn't really fair if you're a team that isn't eliminated until the last game of the season. Why don't your wins count? It would also be completely unfair and unworkable given unbalanced schedules and, even more simply, the timing of when you played teams. Teams with identical records could have huge deltas in their draft position based on nothing more than when they played certain teams. Something as simple as an injury or suspension could cost teams draft slots. So, teams are punished for having guys hurt and playing tough year-end scheds? Nonsense.

Also, something else to keep in mind. Why are NBA teams rebuilding this way? Cause it works. Is it guaranteed? No, of course not. But GMs look at the Cavs, the Heat, the Bulls, the Spurs, the Thunder, etc. and there's a reason they are trying to get the top pick. For 90% of teams, they won't get a top of the food chain guy unless they draft him. If you take away the hope of getting the next Lebron or Griffin, you honestly may as well fold up 15 or so teams.

The problem with the NHL proposal is that it isn't really fair if you're a team that isn't eliminated until the last game of the season. Why don't your wins count? It would also be completely unfair and unworkable given unbalanced schedules and, even more simply, the timing of when you played teams. Teams with identical records could have huge deltas in their draft position based on nothing more than when they played certain teams. Something as simple as an injury or suspension could cost teams draft slots. So, teams are punished for having guys hurt and playing tough year-end scheds? Nonsense.

Also, something else to keep in mind. Why are NBA teams rebuilding this way? Cause it works. Is it guaranteed? No, of course not. But GMs look at the Cavs, the Heat, the Bulls, the Spurs, the Thunder, etc. and there's a reason they are trying to get the top pick. For 90% of teams, they won't get a top of the food chain guy unless they draft him. If you take away the hope of getting the next Lebron or Griffin, you honestly may as well fold up 15 or so teams.

+1

The system works.

Some impatient fans may not like it...but nobody's holding a gun to their head to watch [temporary] ugly basketball.

As has been pointed out, a very small percentage of teams with the worst record have actually won the lottery, so it's not like tanking is an absolute way to get the top pick.

In fact, there's been a couple instances where the concept of the lottery has utterly backfired:

1) Orlando drafted Shaq 1st overall in 1992 and the team improved significantly the following season, narrowly missing the playoffs. With the worst odds of winning the lottery, they did just that. They drafted Chris Webber 1st overall and immediately traded him to Golden State for Penny Hardaway (1993 3rd overall pick) and 3 future 1st round picks! Tanking the 1992-93 season definitely didn't work out for the bottom feeding teams that year.

2) The 1995-96 Spurs, featuring all-star David Robinson, lost the western conference semi finals to Utah. They had high hopes to improve in the 1996-97 season, but injuries decimated their team and they missed the playoffs with the 3rd worst record (Robinson played only 6 games that season). However, the Spurs won the lottery and drafted Tim Duncan 1st overall... you know the rest. The Spurs weren't really a "bad" team and certainly not the most despearate for a franchise changing star, but thanks to injuries and the lottery, the 'twin towers' were formed and championships followed.

My point is that there are many ways for teams that are "not deserving" to get top draft picks, be it through injury, tanking or lottery luck. The bottom line is that there is no perfect system. The last few seasons have seen consensus #1 picks (ie: Davis, Irving, Wall, Griffin) which is why this debate has come to the forefront. However, in a draft without a consensus #1 pick (ie: 2006 when Bargnani went 1st overall), you could very well see several teams pick their top choice, making the debate a moot point.

I think the NBA lottery is a good balance between trying to help the worst teams improve and trying to prevent purposeful losing.

As has been pointed out, a very small percentage of teams with the worst record have actually won the lottery, so it's not like tanking is an absolute way to get the top pick.

In fact, there's been a couple instances where the concept of the lottery has utterly backfired:

1) Orlando drafted Shaq 1st overall in 1992 and the team improved significantly the following season, narrowly missing the playoffs. With the worst odds of winning the lottery, they did just that. They drafted Chris Webber 1st overall and immediately traded him to Golden State for Penny Hardaway (1993 3rd overall pick) and 3 future 1st round picks! Tanking the 1992-93 season definitely didn't work out for the bottom feeding teams that year.

2) The 1995-96 Spurs, featuring all-star David Robinson, lost the western conference semi finals to Utah. They had high hopes to improve in the 1996-97 season, but injuries decimated their team and they missed the playoffs with the 3rd worst record (Robinson played only 6 games that season). However, the Spurs won the lottery and drafted Tim Duncan 1st overall... you know the rest. The Spurs weren't really a "bad" team and certainly not the most despearate for a franchise changing star, but thanks to injuries and the lottery, the 'twin towers' were formed and championships followed.

My point is that there are many ways for teams that are "not deserving" to get top draft picks, be it through injury, tanking or lottery luck. The bottom line is that there is no perfect system. The last few seasons have seen consensus #1 picks (ie: Davis, Irving, Wall, Griffin) which is why this debate has come to the forefront. However, in a draft without a consensus #1 pick (ie: 2006 when Bargnani went 1st overall), you could very well see several teams pick their top choice, making the debate a moot point.

I think the NBA lottery is a good balance between trying to help the worst teams improve and trying to prevent purposeful losing.

The current draft lottery system needs to be fixed in a big way. All this tanking is ultimately bad for business.

My fix (until I think of something better): All teams get one ball. The first 5 balls that come up are the first 5 picks and then picks 6 onward are determined by worst records. Every team plays to get into the playoffs, losing is not necessarily rewarded, tanking becomes a non issue.

They put a lot of thought in to the current system and I think it is the best system in an imperfect league.

A crazy idea here but one that might work.. let the draft picks be 'free agents'. Teams that are out of the playoffs get first crack at these free agents. There should be a max amount and time that can be offered of course, but let the draft pick choose where he wants to go.

A team can only 'draft' one player per year (unless they got the rights from another team). That salary is then counted towards the cap - so some teams that are over the cap or close to it may not want to spend money on a new 'star' and/or trade their rights to some other team.

Once the 14th team selects his guy.. then teams 15-30 go through 'free agency' for their picks.

This takes away the power of a 'rookie salary' and emphasizes management more than luck of the draw. If you have a crappy GM/owner (*cough* Sterling *cough*).. you will continue to get cheap prospects that don't amount to much. A team like Toronto may struggle because a prospect may not want to play for them.. however they may do well in international scouting instead and get guys like JV without issue. But in this specific case as well Toronto would be competing with the bottom feeders in the league in draft 'free agency' instead of the super powers like LA, Miami, and Chicago.. and teams like NY may not be able to convince top prospects to play for them since they'd be near the cap anyways.

Rank the teams that are in the lottery (failed to make the playoffs) 1-14, with one being the worst record, etc.

Take a ball for each team ranked 7-14. Draw one of those: the team drawn gets the 14th pick. Add the ball for team 6, draw for the 13th pick. Add the ball for team 5, draw for the 12th pick, etc. For picks 8-1, you just keep drawing from the remaining balls.

This way, there's a bit of an advantage of having a worse record, but any team can win the lottery, and record doesn't make such a big difference in the rankings.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about tanking.

It's kind of getting on my nerves reading post-game articles make tongue-in-cheek references to "Tank Nation" or "Tank Hopes" and how this win or that win cost us damn lottery balls.

Watching the Raptors win always lifts my spirit up so much, be it the last game of a hopeless season or against the Bobcats. I don't care. I seriously don't give a damn about tanking for Anthony Davis sweepstakes. Although him or MKG would give Raps some serious upgrade next season, I would rather see Raptors put in 100% and win as many games as possible even if they end up with the 10th pick just for the sake of confidence in your existing roster and the goddamn soul of the game. I really, really hate teams coming in with a losing mindset... the game gets decided even before the tip.

Talking about the draft, remember what happened last year? we were pegged at #3 and dropped to #5. Thankfully, we ended up with the guy we wanted, but lottery balls fluctuate a bit too much to rely upon and commit to losing. It anyways looks like a crapshoot for the Raps if they are out of top-2 (and no, Brad Beal or Thomas Robinson is not in the same league as Davis or MKG).
I really don't think Casey is the type of guy who'd tolerate his players losing focus, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than a couple of coaches have already mailed it in for the rest of the season. I just don't want the Raptors to do that.

I feel teams look at Thunder and think maybe if they got a Durant-calibre player, they'll start contending. But they don't realize that in the process they lose the interest and respect of the fans for not playing the game the right way.

Can anyone back me up on this or the tank train is running full speed?

I think that if a team deliberately tanks via setting poor standards and image, they will also set a very bad precedent for their team. So if they do this, they bring that awesome drafted player into a horrible system, which would presumably persist. If that's the case, then any success the team could have is subdued by the bad mentality set by tanking. Call it the 'tanking precedent.'

On the other hand, I believe that Casey's Raptors are setting good precedents, by pounding the rock with a commitment to defence and toughness. In reality, I don't believe that they lose deliberately, in the sights of a higher draft pick.

Aside from whether or not one likes the notion of tanking - Is it good, or is it bad? I believe it's unhealthy for a team, bottom line.

I can't speak for all of "tank nation", but I don't want the Raps team to tank, as in purposefully lose; I want the Raptors to play hard and play at their true talent level, which should result in lots of hard-fought losses. This season is lost, as the Raptors are all but mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. Therefore, attention turns to individual player development, evaluation and then next season.

With the NBA championship and even just a playoff performance out of reach this season, I see no rational reason why you would NOT focus on next season and beyond, doing everything you can to put the best team possible on the court to compete next season for what is long since out of reach this season. If one of the most effective ways of accomplishing that is ensuring the best possible lottery odds for the draft, then so be it, that is just reality of the NBA.

Who's to argue that giving secondary guys more playing time and trying different 5-man lineups isn't a fair player/team assessment, which is part of every GM/coach's responsibility. If that simultaneously helps both player evaluation/development and improving lottery odds, so be it. This season is lost and wins are truly meaningless.

There are no Durants there. It's just one slot, but I'm sure you get the point.

I get that people prefer wins in the present, but that comes at a cost. If you'd prefer to be the Bucks, be a scrappy team that squeaks into the playoffs here and there but never makes it past the second round, then that's your thing. But it's not mine. I want to watch a team playing for a deep playoff run, with a chance to win the championship. Difference of opinion. I'm Willing to wait for that.

Someday they might fix the draft system but until then high lottery picks are the best bet for turning this franchise around. A first or second pick in this year's draft is a lot different than a 5th or lower. I don't want them to stop trying either, but I want them to lose. Because when I look at the roster as constructed, I see a lot of players that were acquired based on potential and who are all struggling to consistently live up to it. Consistency is the hardest thing to master in the NBA, and being consistently elite is nearly impossible. And that's usually the difference between a first or second overall and a 5th: guys like MKG and Davis who bring huge positives every time they step on the floor, and guys like Barnes and Jones, who have the potential to but are still trying to figure out how.

It's kind of getting on my nerves reading post-game articles make tongue-in-cheek references to "Tank Nation" or "Tank Hopes" and how this win or that win cost us damn lottery balls.

Watching the Raptors win always lifts my spirit up so much, be it the last game of a hopeless season or against the Bobcats. I don't care. I seriously don't give a damn about tanking for Anthony Davis sweepstakes. Although him or MKG would give Raps some serious upgrade next season, I would rather see Raptors put in 100% and win as many games as possible even if they end up with the 10th pick just for the sake of confidence in your existing roster and the goddamn soul of the game. I really, really hate teams coming in with a losing mindset... the game gets decided even before the tip.

Talking about the draft, remember what happened last year? we were pegged at #3 and dropped to #5. Thankfully, we ended up with the guy we wanted, but lottery balls fluctuate a bit too much to rely upon and commit to losing. It anyways looks like a crapshoot for the Raps if they are out of top-2 (and no, Brad Beal or Thomas Robinson is not in the same league as Davis or MKG).
I really don't think Casey is the type of guy who'd tolerate his players losing focus, but I wouldn't be surprised if more than a couple of coaches have already mailed it in for the rest of the season. I just don't want the Raptors to do that.

I feel teams look at Thunder and think maybe if they got a Durant-calibre player, they'll start contending. But they don't realize that in the process they lose the interest and respect of the fans for not playing the game the right way.

Can anyone back me up on this or the tank train is running full speed?

I Agree with you 100%. Win or lose, feel good about putting in a great effort. That game last weekend against the Bulls was one of the very best games I have ever seen the raps play and I wish every game was like that. I didn't mind them losing at all, even though it was a heart breaker, they still took the best team in the NBA to their first overtime this year and they had to win it with .00001 seconds left on the clock. When Forbes missed those free throw I knew we were done.

Great point my friend. Keep spreading your word and "JUST SAY NO TO TANKING!"

Honestly, I would rather have them keep it a close game till late in the 4th then lose. At a stage where the roster isn't set and we're lacking a superstar, i'll take the chances losing despite it being the lottery being a complete gamble especially since we will pretty much never be able to land a superstar free agent. The way I see it is that we either have to be really bad or really good. Never inbetween unless it is a 1-3 season turnaround from being bad to great which is to be expected.